JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J. :--Heard both the learned Counsel, Shri Naphade for the appellant (original defendant) and Shri Thorat for the respondents (original plaintiffs).

2. This appeal is against the Order dated 23rd March, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 349 of 1995 in a pending Appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995. Appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995 was admitted on the 7th February, 1995 and in Civil Application No. 349 of 1995 interim relief in terms of prayers (a) and (b) was granted on the same day and the same was made absolute by disposing of the Civil Application on 23rd March, 1995. Thus, the appeal is against the order granting interim relief in a pending appeal from order, which appeal is admittedly under section 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under.

3. Respondent No. 1 Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is also a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. There are 15 elected directors/trustees on the Board. The appellant Robert Punaji Salvi was the former Secretary of the first respondent plaintiff company till 28th September, 1994. The 65th Annual General Meeting of the first respondent company was scheduled to be held at about 12.00 noon on 28th September, 1994. By that time, 8 directors were present. The quorum required for the meeting is 10. Two directors, respondents No. 2 and 3, informed the other directors that two more directors were on their way to the meeting and were delayed due to the hold-ups in traffic. However, the request of the majority of directors for delaying the commencement of the meeting was turned down and the appellant arbitrarily typed out a circular adjourning the meeting and walked out of the room, alongwith another director Shri S.T. Amolik.

4. The other two directors who were delayed viz. Mr. Bhalerao and Ms. Inayat reached the venue of the meeting by 10 past 12 noon. The directors, who were present addressed a letter calling upon the appellant to attend the meeting at 2.00 p.m. on the same day. The letter was received by the appellant by 1.00 p.m., but he refused to attend the meeting. The rest of the directors held the meeting at 2.00 p.m. on September 28, 1994 and the second respondent - Reverend P.B. Amolik was elected as the Secretary in place of the appellant and the 3rd respondent Charles Kemkar was retained as the Honorary Treasurer. All the 15 directors continued to be the directors as before, including the appellant.

5. On 26th October, 1994 the appellant purported to hold a separate meeting without any authority and with only three directors present at the said meeting, 5 directors were purported to be removed and 2 were sought to be appointed afresh without complying with the provisions contained in the Companies Act. The appellant issued a notice on the 1st November, 1994 purporting to convene a meeting of the Board of Directors at 12.00 noon on the 16th November, 1994. This led to the filing of the suit, being S.C. Suit No. 6865 of 1994 by the respondents-plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, on the 14th November, 1994. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit are to the effect that the 65th Annual General Meeting held on the 28th September, 1994 was legal and valid; the meeting purported to have been held on the 26th October, 1994 by the appellant was illegal and improper, and that the removal of 5 directors viz. Reverend P.B. Amolik, Mr. Woodman, Mr. Balid, Ms. Inayat and Mr. Chacko was illegal, bad in law, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Further relief that is prayed for is that the appointment of the two new directors/trustees Mr. Asari and Mr. Rubadi was illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs therefore prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant (present appellant) from in any manner, interfering with the right of the pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document